Bombay High Court
ASHRFUL SADEEK ALI TARAFDARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant under the NDPS Act.
Summary
The applicant, Ashrful Sadeek Ali Tarafdar, was arrested for possession of eleven bottles of codeine phosphate cough syrup, a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, while a co‑accused possessed eight bottles, an intermediate quantity. He has been in custody for over a year without charge framing and the trial appears unlikely to conclude soon. The applicant argued that parity should apply because the co‑accused was released on bail, whereas the State contended that the larger quantity justified denial of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court noted the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record, the prolonged incarceration, the absence of a framed charge, and the likelihood of trial delay, and considered Supreme Court precedents granting bail in similar circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail with stringent conditions, emphasizing that the order does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of narcotic substance under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the principle of parity applies when a co‑accused with a lesser quantity has been released on bail.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and lack of charge framing justify bail despite the commercial quantity involved.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(b), 21(c), 29, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- codeine syrup
- commercial quantity
- parity principle
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ MANOJ 903-BA-1936-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
18:54:50 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1936 OF 2026
Ashrful Sadeek Ali Tarafdar …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Nilesh S. Bangar, for the Applicant.
Mr. T. G. Khan, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with an FIR
bearing Cr.No.342 of 2025, registered with Neharu Nagar Police
Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c),
21(b), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act 1985 (“NDPS Act”), on the Report dated 15 th July,
2025, lodged by Mr. Chhabu Tadage - Police Constable.
3. The prosecution case is that on 14th July 2025, at about 19.30
hours, while the police team including the informant was patrolling,
near Mother Dairy Road, Kurla, accused No.1 and the applicant
were present there, near the traffic signal at S.C.L.R. Bridge and,
they were hiding something in their hands. Therefore, A1 and the
applicant were accosted and inquired with by police. They gave
evasive replies. One bag each held by the A1 and the applicant were
searched in the presence of panchas. Eight (8) bottles containing
Codeine Phosphate Based Cough Syrup were found in the bag in the
possession of A1 and Eleven (11) such bottles were found in the bag
Page 1 of 4
MANOJ 903-BA-1936-2026.DOC
in the possession of the applicant. Said contraband bottles were
seized, recording a detailed panchanama. Accordingly, aforesaid
crime came to be registered and, both the accused were arrested. On
completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. The
trial Court declined the applicant’s prayer for bail.
4. Mr. Bangar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
A1 has been released on bail by the Sessions Court. The applicant is
in jail for more than one year. Therefore, applicant is entitled to be
released on bail on the principle of parity and the incarceration.
5. Opposing the said submission, Mr. Khan, the learned APP
submitted that no parity is applicable in this case, because, A1 was
found in possession of intermediate quantity and present applicant
was found in possession of commercial quantity. The applicant has
not shown that prima facie, he is not guilty of this offence.
Therefore and, having regard to rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act,
bail may be refused.
6. I have considered these submissions. The present crime is
committed by A1 and the applicant together. However, there is
difference of three bottles between the A1 and the applicant. Be that
as it may. The applicant is in jail for last 1 year. Till the date, charge
is not framed. The prosecution has cited 12 witnesses. Therefore,
trial is not likely to conclude in a foreseeable time. A1 is already
released on bail. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is not
likely to abscond and tamper with evidence. Stringent conditions
will help in preventing the applicant from indulging in such
activities.
7. In similar situation bail is granted in following cases by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Page 2 of 4
MANOJ 903-BA-1936-2026.DOC
In Anandbhai Rajendrabhai Vaniya v. State of Gujarat,
Criminal Appeal No.859/2025 arising out of [SLP (Crl.)
No.17042/2024], as alleged, the appellant was driving the car from
which 995 bottles of RX Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine
Hydrochloride syrup were seized. The appellant had figured in eight
cases, but, was discharged in five cases, acquitted in two cases and
in the other remaining case, he was on bail. Taking into
consideration the 17 months incarceration of the Applicant, the
nature of allegations levelled against him and, the possibility of the
trial not being concluded anytime soon, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
released the appellant on bail.
In MD Ezaz Afzal & Anr. v. State of W.B SLA (Crl.)
12419/2024, the petitioners were arrested on 10.12.2023 as 1920
bottles of codeine phosphate syrup were seized from them. The trial
was not commenced. No witness was examined, though 14 were
cited by the prosecution. Taking note of the quantity of codeine
phosphate syrup allegedly involved in the case and, the period of
incarceration (11 months) already undergone by the Petitioners, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court released them on bail.
8. In the wake of above, I am inclined to allow the application.
Hence, following Order:-
(i) Applicant – Ashrful Sadeek Ali Tarafdar shall be
released on bail in connection with an FIR bearing Cr.No.342
of 2025, registered with Neharu Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Neharu
Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, on the 1st day of each calendar
Page 3 of 4
MANOJ 903-BA-1936-2026.DOC
month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion
of the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
which he has been arraigned in this case.
(vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
application and should not influence the outcome of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
9. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…